A follow-up to the book "Unnatural Acts: Critical Thinking, Skepticism and Science Exposed!" by Robert Todd Carroll, creator of The Skeptic's Dictionary. The blog will offer irregular postings about cognitive biases, logical fallacies, and illusions.

Site Map

Monday, January 14, 2013

suppressed evidence

A cogent argument presents all the relevant evidence. An argument that omits relevant evidence appears stronger and more cogent than it is.

The fallacy of suppressed evidence occurs when an arguer intentionally omits relevant data. This is a difficult fallacy to detect because we often have no way of knowing that we haven't been told the whole truth.

Many advertisements commit this fallacy. Ads inform us of a product's dangers only if required to do so by law. Ads never state that a competitor's product is equally good. The coal [*], asbestos [*], nuclear [*], and tobacco[*] industries have knowingly suppressed evidence regarding the health of their employees or the health hazards of their industries and products.

Occasionally scientists will suppress evidence, making a study seem more significant than it is. In the December 1998 issue of The Western Journal of Medicine scientists Fred Sicher, Elisabeth Targ, Dan Moore II, and Helene S. Smith published "A Randomized Double-Blind Study of the Effect of Distant Healing [DH] in a Population With Advanced AIDS--Report of a Small Scale Study." (See my article on the Sicher-Targ distance healing report for more details.) The authors do not mention, nor has The Western Journal of Medicine ever acknowledged, that the study was originally designed and funded to determine one specific effect: death. The 1998 study was designed to be a follow-up to a 1995 study of 20 patients with AIDS, ten of whom were prayed for by psychic healers. Four of the patients died, a result consistent with chance, but all four were in the control group, a stat that appeared anomalous enough to these scientists to do further study. I don't know whether evidence was suppressed or whether the scientists doing the study were simply incompetent, but the four patients who died were the four oldest in the study. The 1995 study did not control for age when it assigned the patients to either the control or the healing prayer group. Any controlled study on mortality that does not control for age is by definition not a properly designed study.

The follow-up study, however, did suppress evidence, yet it is "widely acknowledged as the most scientifically rigorous attempt ever to discover if prayer can heal" (Bronson, "A
Prayer Before Dying," 2002). The standard format for scientific reports is to begin with an abstract that summarizes the contents of the report. The abstract for the Sicher report notes that controls were done for age, number of AIDS-defining illnesses, and cell count. Patients were randomly assigned to the control or healing prayer groups. The study followed the patients for six months. "At 6 months, a blind medical chart review found that treatment subjects acquired significantly fewer new AIDS-defining illnesses (0.1 versus 0.6 per patient, P = 0.04), had lower illness severity (severity score 0.8 versus 2.65, P = 0.03), and required significantly fewer doctor visits (9.2 versus 13.0, P = 0.01), fewer hospitalizations (0.15 versus 0.6, P = 0.04), and fewer days of hospitalization (0.5 versus 3.4, P = 0.04)." These numbers are very impressive. They indicate that the measured differences were not likely due to chance. Whether they were due to healing prayer (HP) is another matter, but the scientists concluded their abstract with the claim: "These data support the possibility of a DH effect in AIDS and suggest the value of further research." Two years later the team, led by Elisabeth Targ, was granted $1.5 million of our tax dollars from the National Institutes of Health Center for Complementary Medicine to do further research on the healing effects of prayer.

What the Sicher study didn't reveal was that the original study had not been designed to do any of these measurements they report as significant. Of course, any researcher who didn't report significant findings just because the original study hadn't set out to investigate them would be remiss. The standard format of a scientific report allows such findings to be noted in the abstract or in the Discussion section of the report. It would have been appropriate for the Sicher report to have noted in the Discussion section that since only one patient died during their study, it appears that the new drugs being given AIDS patients as part of their standard therapy (triple-drug anti-retroviral therapy) were having a significant effect on longevity. They might even have suggested that their finding warranted further research into the effectiveness of the new drug therapy. However, the Sicher report abstract doesn't even mention that only one of their subjects died during the study, indicating that they didn't recognize a truly significant research finding. It may also indicate that the scientists didn't want to call attention to the fact that their original study was designed to study the effect of healing prayer on the mortality rate of AIDS patients. Since only one patient died, perhaps they felt that they had nothing to report.

It was only after they mined the data once the study was completed that they came up with the suggestive and impressive statistics that they present in their published report. The Texas sharpshooter fallacy seems to have been committed here. Under certain conditions, mining the data would be perfectly acceptable. For example, if your original study was designed to study the effectiveness of a drug on blood pressure but you find after the data is in that the experimental group had no significant decrease in blood pressure but did have a significant increase in HDL (the "good" cholesterol), you would be remiss not to mention this. You would be guilty of deception, however, if you wrote your paper as if your original design was to study the effects of the drug on cholesterol and made no mention of blood pressure.

It would have been entirely appropriate for the Sicher group to have noted in the Discussion section of their report that they had discovered something interesting in their statistics: Hospital stays and doctor visits were lower for the HP group. It was inappropriate to write the report as if that was one of the effects the study was designed to measure when this effect was neither looked for nor discovered until Moore, the statistician for the study, began crunching numbers looking for something of statistical significance after the study was completed. That was the most significant stat he could come up with. Again, crunching numbers and data mining after a study is completed is appropriate; not mentioning that you rewrote your paper to make it look like it had been designed to crunch those numbers isn't.

It would have been appropriate in the Discussion section of their report to have speculated as to the reason for the statistically significant differences in hospitalizations and days of hospitalization. They could have speculated that prayer made all the difference and, if they were competent, they would have also noted that insurance coverage could have made all the difference as well. "Patients with health insurance tend to stay in hospitals longer than uninsured ones" (Bronson 2002). The researchers should have checked this out and reported their findings. Instead, they then took a list of 23 illnesses associated with AIDS and had Sicher go back over each of the forty patient medical charts and use them to collect the data for the 23 illnesses as best he could. This was after it was known to Sicher which group each patient had been randomly assigned to, prayer or control. The fact that the names were blacked out, so he could not immediately tell whose record he was reading, does not seem sufficient to justify allowing him to review the data. There were only 40 patients in the study and he was familiar with each of them. It would have been better had an independent party, someone not involved in the study, gone over the medical charts. Sicher is "an ardent believer in distant healing" and he had put up $7,500 for the pilot study on prayer and mortality. His impartiality was clearly compromised. So was the double-blind quality of the study.

Thus, there was quite a bit of significant and relevant evidence suppressed in the Sicher study that, had it been revealed, might have diminished its reputation as the best designed study ever on prayer and healing. Instead of being held up as a model of promising research in the field of spiritual science, this study might have ended up in the trash heap where it belongs.

another example of suppressed evidence

In an effort to encourage reporters to be more critical of President Barack Obama's economic stimulus package, Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, encouraged reporters to determine the wastefulness of the package by getting "out your calculators" and divide the amount of money being spent by the number of jobs created or saved. Doing so produces the ridiculous figure of nearly a quarter of a million dollars per job. (The White House had estimated that $160 billion in stimulus money was spent and that 650,000 jobs were created or preserved.) Fortunately, many reporters didn't take the bait.

Calvin Woodward of the Associated Press, for example, responded by writing an article on some of the things that Stewart was not considering. When you consider all the relevant evidence, the notion that Obama is spending about $250,000 per job can be seen for the distortion that it is. Woodward notes:

The calculations ignore the fact that the money doesn't go directly to each job holder, but also goes toward material and supplies as well.

The contracts being made will fuel work for months or years. Jobs begun with stimulus money will probably stimulate more jobs in the future, e.g., a construction project may only require a few engineers to get going, but the work force may swell "as ground is broken and building accelerates."

Even if we take at face value the White House claim that it created or saved all these jobs with approximately $150 billion of the economic stimulus money, a little simple math shows the taxpayers aren’t getting any bargains here: $150 billion divided by 650,000 jobs equals $230,000 per job saved or created. Instead of taking all that time required to write the 1,588-page stimulus bill, Congress could have passed a one-pager saying the first 650,000 jobless persons to report for work at the White House will receive a voucher worth $230,000 redeemable at the university, community college or trade school of their choice. That would have been enough for a degree plus a hefty down payment on a mortgage.

Finally, it is an unfortunate fact that some prosecutors subvert the criminal justice system by not disclosing exculpatory evidence. As a result, many languish in prison unlawfully and can only hope that the suppressed evidence will be exposed and their convictions overturned by courts. Police fabrication often goes hand in hand with suppressed evidence in such cases, e.g., the case of the Birmingham Six and the case of the Central Park Five.

false charge of suppressed evidence

Cranks often make a false charge of suppressed evidence to support claims that their alternative view of science, history, or current affairs is justified. For example, Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson in Forbidden Archeology (1993) claim that scientists have been suppressing evidence of all kinds rather than give up the standard model for the age of the human species.

The evidence includes a nail found in Devonian sandstone, metallic tubes found in Cretaceous chalk, a gold thread found in Carboniferous stone, a small Carboniferous gold chain found in a lump of coal, a Carboniferous iron cup from a chunk of coal, a Cambrian ‘shoe print’, a metallic vase from Precambrian rock, and Precambrian grooved metallic spheres from South Africa.*

Unfortunately, none of this evidence exists because it's been suppressed, according to the authors, and we have to rely on reports of its existence from a variety of sources who are long dead.

NASA and the U.S. government have been falsely accused of suppressing evidence regarding alien visitations, the Apollo moon landing, and who knows what else. Conspiracy theorists frequently accuse the U.S. government and Big Pharma of suppressing evidence on a number of things including the conspiracy behind 9/11 and the use of vaccinations to harm us. This should not surprise us since both government[1, 2] and Big Pharma have suppressed evidence many times in the past. The government and Big Pharma won't tell us that the flu shot promotes Alzheimer's, according to conspiracist Russell Blaylock, M.D. Former dentist Leonard Horowitz warns us that the evidence has been suppressed that proves that the AIDS and Ebola epidemics were intentionally caused by the U.S. government and that the H1N1 vaccine causes sterility. The master of self-serving nonsense, Kevin Trudeau, has been telling the world for years that "they" have been suppressing evidence for "natural" cures, good diets, and how to get out of debt.

To prove that evidence has been suppressed one must do more than provide suggestions, implications, and claims from others who can't be cross-examined and who can't produce the evidence that relevant data has been suppressed. One must produce the evidence that relevant evidence has been suppressed. That has not been done by one of the weirdest conspiracy theory/alternative medicine cranks I've ever come across: QuantumMAN, which claims to be the "world's first downloadable medicine." These characters, who go by names such as J S Van Cleave, Michael H. Uehara, and Nicholas Brandon Zynda, also call their operation Extraterrestrial Technology. They recently appeared at the International Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, touting their quantum computing based on extraterrestrial technology that allows medicine to be digitized and downloaded to your cell phone and magically teleported to your body. The world of science-based medicine has been duping us for centuries with its chemical-based approach.

These folks use the slogan "Treat disease with data not drugs." The claim, contrary to all known science, that quantum physics allows them to use a special quantum computer to directly transfer data to your phone that then somehow is magically digitized and directly uploaded to your body exactly where it's needed. Never mind that such geniuses should be able to eliminate the physical
device (smart phone, computer. or tablet) as an intermediary. Anyway, they claim that chemical-based treatment systems are not compatible with human physiology. How do they know this? "The universe, including the human body and conditions that afflict it, all operates [sic] according to the principles of quantum physics. Chemical based treatment systems do not operate according to those principles and, as such, are not compatible with the human host." (Nice contradiction, don't you think? On the one hand everything operates according to the principles of quantum physics but chemical treatments don't operate according to the principles of quantum physics.) If these claims were true--which they are not--it would mean that there has been a vast conspiracy involving the entire scientific community for several centuries to suppress not only scientific evidence but logical principles as well.

These quantum/extraterrestrial folks claim they have a humanitarian research group called ZAG (Zürich Alpine Group):

ZAG understands that quantum problems require a quantum solution and has found a way to transfer bioinformation from its quantum computer via quantum teleportation to the brain, [and?] also [has made?] a quantum computer, [sic] to reprogram the brain to effect positive medical changes within the body and mind. These technological advancements have thus given birth to the world's first downloadable medicines.

They've kept their work quiet because Big Pharma is lurking in the wings ready to steal their secrets. Anyway, none of these downloadable "medicines" are free (including the one that supposedly gives protection against malaria) and I would bet that the claim that all profit is going to charity is as true as the rest of the claims on their websites.

If you're still paying attention, you should know that your pet can be protected, too:

Use
your cell phone (your pc, laptop or tablet) to instantly diagnose and
medically treat your pet at home with guaranteed results with a radical
new technology of extraterrestrial origin. Using pure data, QuantumVET
Tricorder Plus treats by programming the brain of the species with
biodirectives.

It should be noted that what the quantum/extraterrestrial folks claim about effecting physiological changes by a quantum computer via quantum teleporting is false because the mass of biological molecules and the speed with which they communicate via ion channels and mechanically are several orders of magnitude too large for quantum effects to matter. See The Unconscious Quantum by Victor Stenger and The Spark of Life by Frances Ashford.

17 comments:

1. The fallacy of suppressed evidence can be thought of as exhibiting half-truths or 'guilt by omission'. This is a very common fallacy.

2. Most of the time there is a deliberate intent to neglect evidence that would be contrary to the arguer's claim. Failure to use relevant information we should have thought of or known to look for also counts as suppressed evidence.

3. Zealots who are blinded to arguments from the other side often suppress evidence that is damaging to their side of the issue, as they provide us only with evidence favorable to their position.

4. Most ads are guilty of this fallacy since they rarely tell us the deficiencies of their product.

5. A common type of suppressed evidence is suppressed statistics. Sometimes we are only given percentages WITHOUT giving us additional numbers that make the percentages more meaningful. Sometimes we are given ONLY the statistics which support a point of view, while we are not given those statistics which would be negative to that point of view.

6. The fallacy of suppressed evidence is often very difficult to ascertain because we may not be knowledgeable enough about the issue at hand.

One of the basic principles of cogent argumentation is that a cogent argument presents all the relevant evidence. An argument that omits relevant evidence appears stronger and more cogent than it is.

The fallacy of suppressed evidence occurs when an arguer intentionally omits relevant data. This is a difficult fallacy to detect because we often have no way of knowing that we haven't been told the whole truth.

What is suppressed is the total number of crimes for last year and this year. When you learn there were 4 crimes last year and 2 crimes this year then you should assume that the JC campus is still just about as safe as last year, that is, it's not much safer.

Suppression of evidence is a term used in the United States legal system to describe the lawful or unlawful act of preventing evidence from being shown in a trial. This could happen for several reasons. For example, if a judge believes that the evidence in question was obtained illegally, he can rule that it not be shown in court. It could also refer to a prosecutor improperly or intentionally hiding evidence that he or she is legally obligated to show the defense. In the latter case, this would be a violation of the 5th amendment to the United States Constitution. This can result in a mistrial in the latter case and/or the dismissal of the prosecutor.

You wouldn't be directing people to the "Skepdic" Site at all would you? Tell me, is there any mention on that site of the movements of Hurricane Erin before and after the events of 9/11. Seems there is suppression of evidence about that incident if you ask me. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/ Just check out the evidence and then consider how suppressed, or not, it may be.